Reasonable Force

F-2019-950

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2019-950, Shilow Lynn Dumas appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court, except for a $1,000.00 fine imposed, which was stricken from the record. One judge dissented. Dumas was found guilty of injuring a child and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment after a jury trial. He raised several errors for appeal, including issues regarding jury instructions, the imposition of a fine, the sufficiency of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative errors. The court reviewed the trial process and found that the jury instructions, while not ideal, did not impact Dumas's rights enough to be considered a plain error since he did not object to them during the trial. They noted Dumas's defense did not argue that his discipline was reasonable, which weakened his claims about how he should have been instructed on the law regarding discipline. The court found the trial court had made a plain error by imposing a fine after the jury did not recommend one, and thus they vacated the fine. Next, the court examined the evidence that was presented, ruling that enough evidence was available to support the jury's finding that Dumas had willfully injured the child. When looking at claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court decided that since Dumas did not show how he was harmed by his lawyer’s performance, his claims were unconvincing. The cumulative errors claim was also denied, as the court found no significant harmful errors besides the fine issue. Therefore, the overall decision upheld the conviction while correcting one aspect concerning the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2019-950

F-2009-399

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.

Continue ReadingF-2009-399

F 2000-1157

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1157, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case was about a man named Robert G. Kirkpatrick, who was found guilty by a jury. He was working as a security guard when the incident happened. The jury decided he was guilty, but he thought he didn’t do anything wrong. He believed that he was just trying to keep the peace at a dance event, and he said he was acting in self-defense. Kirkpatrick asked the court to review two main points. First, he said that the judge should have explained what a dangerous weapon is and should have told the jury about a less serious crime they could consider. Second, he argued that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about self-defense. After looking carefully at the case, the court agreed that the second point was important. They believed that if the jury had been given the correct information about self-defense, they might not have found Kirkpatrick guilty. The judges explained that Kirkpatrick had the right to use reasonable force to do his job as a security guard, which included keeping people safe and protecting property. The law says that anyone, including security guards, can help maintain law and order. Because of this, the court decided that Kirkpatrick should not have been found guilty. They reversed the decision of the lower court and said the case should be dismissed. However, one judge disagreed with the dismissal. This judge thought that there was enough evidence to suggest that Kirkpatrick might have been acting in self-defense. They believed that the case should go back to court for a new trial where the jury could hear about self-defense properly. So, the main outcome was that Kirkpatrick's conviction was reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to dismiss the charges. The decision showed that proper instructions and understanding of the law are very important in a trial.

Continue ReadingF 2000-1157